Effects of air abrasive decontamination on titanium surfaces: A systematic review of in vitro studies.

air abrasion biocompatibility cleaning effectiveness decontamination surface roughness titanium surface

Journal

Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 28 12 2018
revised: 05 02 2019
accepted: 11 02 2019
pubmed: 7 3 2019
medline: 21 11 2019
entrez: 7 3 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Air abrasion (AA) is one of the decontamination methods that have demonstrated promising results in treating peri-implant diseases. This systematic review aimed at evaluating the in vitro effect of AA on surface change, cleaning efficacy, and biocompatibility of titanium surfaces and at comparing it with other decontamination methods. A comprehensive search was conducted up to April 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies on the decontamination effect of AA. All types of titanium surfaces, abrasive powders, contaminated surfaces, and measuring methods were included. Overall, 1502 articles were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts, and carefully reading the full-texts, 48 articles published between 1989 and 2018 were selected. AA was considered almost safe, particularly for the nonmodified surfaces. Nevertheless, harder powders such as sodium bicarbonate tended to damage the surface more than glycine. AA resulted in surface change similar to plastic curettes and Er: YAG lasers. Regarding the cleaning efficacy, there was no significant difference between glycine and sodium bicarbonate, but different mixtures of calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, and erythritol were superior to glycine. AA was superior or equal to all other decontamination methods in cleaning. Regarding biocompatibility, AA was more successful in preserving biocompatibility for noncontaminated surfaces compared with contaminated surfaces and when used with erythritol and osteoinductive powders. AA can efficiently remove contamination without serious damage to the surface. The main drawback of the AA method seems to be its limitation in restoring the biocompatibility of the surface.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Air abrasion (AA) is one of the decontamination methods that have demonstrated promising results in treating peri-implant diseases.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed at evaluating the in vitro effect of AA on surface change, cleaning efficacy, and biocompatibility of titanium surfaces and at comparing it with other decontamination methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted up to April 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies on the decontamination effect of AA. All types of titanium surfaces, abrasive powders, contaminated surfaces, and measuring methods were included.
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, 1502 articles were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts, and carefully reading the full-texts, 48 articles published between 1989 and 2018 were selected. AA was considered almost safe, particularly for the nonmodified surfaces. Nevertheless, harder powders such as sodium bicarbonate tended to damage the surface more than glycine. AA resulted in surface change similar to plastic curettes and Er: YAG lasers. Regarding the cleaning efficacy, there was no significant difference between glycine and sodium bicarbonate, but different mixtures of calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, and erythritol were superior to glycine. AA was superior or equal to all other decontamination methods in cleaning. Regarding biocompatibility, AA was more successful in preserving biocompatibility for noncontaminated surfaces compared with contaminated surfaces and when used with erythritol and osteoinductive powders.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
AA can efficiently remove contamination without serious damage to the surface. The main drawback of the AA method seems to be its limitation in restoring the biocompatibility of the surface.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30838790
doi: 10.1111/cid.12747
doi:

Substances chimiques

Dental Implants 0
Durapatite 91D9GV0Z28
Titanium D1JT611TNE

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

398-421

Informations de copyright

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Auteurs

Mohammad Moharrami (M)

Independent Researcher, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.

Vittoria Perrotti (V)

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.

Flavia Iaculli (F)

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.

Robert M Love (RM)

School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Alessandro Quaranta (A)

School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Articles similaires

Aerosols Humans Decontamination Air Microbiology Masks

Characterization of 3D printed composite for final dental restorations.

Lucas Eigi Borges Tanaka, Camila da Silva Rodrigues, Manassés Tércio Vieira Grangeiro et al.
1.00
Composite Resins Materials Testing Printing, Three-Dimensional Surface Properties Flexural Strength
Phonons Titanium Oxides Zirconium Calcium Compounds
Ultraviolet Rays Disinfection Ultrasonography Surface Properties Humans

Classifications MeSH